Salvation Trilemma

The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—

(1) God saves (all);

(2) God fails to save (at least some); or

(3) God does not will to save (at least some).

The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or affliction/healing model of salvation. The trilemma holds in the face of any version of hell: e.g., temporary/purgative, everlasting punitive, or no hell at all.

Free-will arguments generally lead to (2). Calvinist double-predestination entails (3).

A great deal of theological and exegetical and apologetic ink has been spilled articulating/defending each possibility.

This trilemma stands at the heart of every soteriology and theodicy.

I argued for (1) extensively here: http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=66497&page=&page=7

I cited page 7 because that seems to be where Epi and I really started digging deep, but there are worthy posts before that. (My arguments might be different today, but I would still draw on much of the exegesis done in that thread). I won’t re-present my whole argument here.

In the course of that thread, the initial trilemma seemed to go underground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).

Originally posted by vistesd
The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—

(1) God saves (all);

(2) God fails to save (at least some); or

(3) God does not will to save (at least some).

The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or afflict ...[text shortened]... nderground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).

For what it is worth, my 2 cents.
#1 is false.
#2 is close, but also false.
God does not fail. He expected some/many to not be saved.
True free will, requires a gamble. He knew that some would not believe, but still won many.
#3 is false, God wants all to be saved, but not all will.

Originally posted by vistesd
The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—

(1) God saves (all);

(2) God fails to save (at least some); or

(3) God does not will to save (at least some).

The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or afflict ...[text shortened]... nderground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).

I would add:

(4) God provides the means for people to save themselves. That plus the observation that salvation is (largely) a collective effort, not an individual one.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
For what it is worth, my 2 cents.
#1 is false.
#2 is close, but also false.
God does not fail. He expected some/many to not be saved.
True free will, requires a gamble. He knew that some would not believe, but still won many.
#3 is false, God wants all to be saved, but not all will.

Isn't that saying #3 is true? You're saying God does not want to save those who do not want to be saved.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Isn't that saying #3 is true? You're saying God does not want to save those who do not want to be saved.

No, God wants all to be saved, but because of free will, not all can be saved.
Many choose not to, and God honors that choice.

Originally posted by vistesd

The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—

(1) God saves (all);

(2) God fails to save (at least some); or

(3) God does not will to save (at least some).

The trilemma holds in the face of free will. The trilemma holds in the face of either a juridical (pardon/punishment) or affli ...[text shortened]... nderground. I wanted to see if there are any new arguments from those who adhere to (2) or (3).

"The following trilemma holds with regard to salvation (at least in Christian models that I am aware of)—"

"(1) God saves (all)": who want to be saved, irrespective of gender; social status; wealth or poverty; political bias; religious affiliation; charitable giving or selfishness; record of criminal offenses or convictions; number of covert or overt sins committed; sexual orientation; life style or depth of degradation; or volume of previous rejections of his salvation offer; .

"2) God fails to save (at least some); or": all who have no interest in being saved, without respect of person [flinty hardness of attitude against or lackadaisical, passive dismissal of his gracious offer].

"3) God does not will to save (at least some).": God wills to save all but will not coerce the free will of any who have no interest in being saved [who may still change their minds at any time until their eventual death]. -Bob

Originally posted by rwingett
I would add:

(4) God provides the means for people to save themselves. That plus the observation that salvation is (largely) a collective effort, not an individual one.

Good point. He has set a standard already.
"The wages of sin is death" So, people can pay for their own sins, but they die.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Good point. He has set a standard already.
"The wages of sin is death" So, people can pay for their own sins, but they die.

That wasn't quite what I had in mind.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
No, God wants all to be saved, but because of free will, not all can be saved.
Many choose not to, and God honors that choice.

God honors the choice by choosing not to save them. You can't escape the plain meaning of simple words, no matter how hard you try.

Originally posted by rwingett
That wasn't quite what I had in mind.

I didn't think so either. But it is the only standard God set up. It takes blood to pay for sin.
I have someone else to pay for mine, Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by SwissGambit

God honors the choice by choosing not to save them. You can't escape the plain meaning of simple words, no matter how hard you try.

SG, let's say we're playing Chess OTB and after 38 moves you offer me a Gentlemen's Draw. I stubbornly say, "Nah, gb's got a win". After five more moves you Checkmate Center Board with a Pawn. My choice caused me to lose out on something I was offered. There's nothing you can do to change or save gb from the choice he made. Doesn't the metaphor hold?

Originally posted by rwingett
That wasn't quite what I had in mind.

What did you have in mind then?

Someone whipping out a checkbook and asking "so, what will it take to get me into Heaven today?"

Originally posted by checkbaiter
I didn't think so either. But it is the only standard God set up. It takes blood to pay for sin.
I have someone else to pay for mine, Jesus Christ.

I have no interest in standard god set ups.

Originally posted by rwingett
I have no interest in standard god set ups.

How is salvation a collective effort? God offers, the individual accepts or rejects. Sounds like an individual effort to me.
I don't understand your train of thought.

Originally posted by Suzianne
What did you have in mind then?

Someone whipping out a checkbook and asking "so, what will it take to get me into Heaven today?"

Build the kingdom. As a certain group of 42,000 people who start with an 'H' are doing. Salvation will come in this world, not in the next.